The Wire, a Leftist propaganda media outlet known for downplaying historical and current atrocities against Hindus, has reacted strongly to the portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj’s brutal torture by Mughal ruler Aurangzeb in the movie Chhaava. In a YouTube video, The Wire condemned the film, accusing its makers of inciting hatred against Muslims.
In the video, a correspondent from The Wire argued that most people are unaware of the “real history” and claimed that Chhaava misleads viewers about India’s past. He accused the filmmakers of having malicious intent, suggesting that a survey of people who watched the film would likely reveal that it fostered a heightened sense of hatred toward Muslims. The journalist also claimed that children were crying and screaming while watching the movie in cinemas.
The correspondent expressed particular concern over the portrayal of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb as a ruthless and cruel figure, which he felt was inaccurate. He criticized the film for including scenes that painted Mughal emperors as excessively cruel, a representation he argued was unjust. He went further to say that the movie contradicted the spirit of the Indian Constitution, asserting that anyone who truly respected the Constitution would be ashamed of it.
He supported his view on the generosity of the Mughal rulers by arguing that their ability to establish and maintain a vast empire across India would not have been possible without respecting the country’s diversity. To bolster his claim, he referenced examples from NCERT school textbooks, highlighting how Rajput rulers married their daughters into Mughal families. While he acknowledged that Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, who killed his brother to ascend the throne, was not as generous as Akbar, he maintained that Aurangzeb was not as bad as the movie depicted him.
In his defence of Aurangzeb, the journalist argued that the Mughal ruler’s generosity was evident from the fact that, despite imposing the Jizya (a religious tax) on Hindus, he exempted Brahmins, women, and the elderly. He acknowledged that while Aurangzeb destroyed some Hindu temples, he also constructed others. Although the journalist expressed dissatisfaction with the movie as a whole, he was particularly upset by the approximately 40 minutes dedicated to depicting the brutal execution of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj after enduring days of inhuman torture at the hands of Aurangzeb.
The journalist further claimed that the Marathas were no different from the Mughals and suggested that the Peshwas in the Maratha administration committed caste-based atrocities against Dalits who had revolted with British support.
Interestingly, in his attempt to argue that the film fosters hatred against the Muslim community by portraying Aurangzeb as a ruthless ruler, the journalist unintentionally implied that Aurangzeb’s depiction reflects the entire Muslim community today. He suggested that if Aurangzeb is shown as cruel, it somehow implies that the movie is portraying all Muslims as cruel.
The journalist also held the Modi government responsible for such movies, alleging that under its leadership, “absurd” films like Article 370 and The Kerala Story were being produced.
If criticising Aurangzeb is considered anti-Islam, then by the same logic, condemning British colonial rule should be seen as anti-Christianity. If Aurangzeb’s religion has nothing to do with his actions, then why do so-called Islamists insist on portraying him as a hero? This contradiction exposes the selective outrage and historical distortions used to shield tyrants under the guise of religious identity.
